That led us then to talking about really a very interesting area soft tissue in
dinosaur bones. Which is with Kevin Anderson we went down to Arizona.
That was an exciting area for you I know you were very. This was one of the more
fascinating area for most people. They're fascinated. They're unaware
of this. No, I mean the opportunity to go into the lab with Dr. Kevin Anderson. But
his explanation of how that material, the the protein in that material breaks down
rapidly, it's not it's not something that that survives a long period of time. And
in particular, as he was saying, in the hostile environment in which these
things are found and the fact that we're now finding it in other bones. And this
that's a paradigm shift for people who would have never ever have considered
finding soft dinosaur tissue. And so we weren't looking for it. Right. And
now that we're looking for it well. we're finding it. This is not an anomaly this
is not a one-off. They even find it in rib bones smaller ribs. Right. So I found
that was interesting because when he originally did this work he worked with Mark
Armitage who did all the microscopy work and Mark is an electron microscapist who
found this. But that's where all of our video footage came from was Mark who
was doing the microscopy work out of California. And Kevin who was doing a lot of
the analysis and kind of talking through some of the ways these things could
actually potentially have been preserved. I think that's an interesting point. I
don't know if it came out but the original work had been done by Mary
Schweitzer, who is a very respected and very smart paleontologist. But because of
her I think it's her histo... she'd run blood work, she saw and knew what this
was working with Jack Horner. Who was actually one of the guys who had advised
on Jurassic Park, ironically enough. But Mary Schweitzer knew what she had found
that it either of course Mary Schweitzer has embraced and
and holds on to the paradigm, and understandably so, of an Old Earth and
therefore buys into the radioisotope dating saying that well these are they
gotta be old. And so she's looking for what is the mechanism. But that's the
problem is that what was fascinating when you look at the psychology of the
speakers people who, and Kevin gets into this later in the interview, that they
rejected this out of hand and said... Someone actually said to one of these
folks who was looking at this who had said well it's bacteria. Well it's bird
dropping. Well it's someone's lunch. All kind of bizarre things we're told to
her criticizing her. And someone once said, was asking "well what would
it take for you to believe that this was really dinosaur tissue?" She said "nothing."
Nothing. It reminds me of Stephen Gould saying "well I'm just not gonna go there."
That's right. And because they understood it. Well what's fascinating when you get
into this is people who withdrew views, views that said "I only know these
proteins could live you know a hundred thousand a million years." They just
stopped talking about. But she's done a lot of work in the iron model to try to
say "okay we're gonna take ostrich vein vessels and let's preserve them in
iron" The problem I always have with this is like well that's not how they were
found. And this idea of and then what no one seemed to talk about was radiation.
That the levels of uranium and thorium in the soil, I think there's a scientist
that talks about this, you can put apparently, I've not done this, a Geiger
counter up against of many fossils bones and they it lights up. Meaning if, and
let's just take the paradigm it really is 65 million years old, well the amount
of uranium and thorium and all the things that we know, we often have
people getting radon just checking in our own home so we don't want the levels,
that's all in there. So basically the idea of gamma rays and beta waves that
will be going through and destroying this tissue for 65-75 million years
that's really extraordinary. No one has explained how. What is it lead encased
now too? and What is this? And then you have the reality of how they're found.
And there's so much of them. Now I think Kevin's right, it's very hard to
understand even how five and six thousand year to be even reasonable. Right.
Even from near-term. Why would it even be there near-term? But I think it's very
curious with all this curious things going on radiologically during the flood
and the things happening, there's something there potentially. Some
reasoning that I think that that the creationists will likely have better
models to explain this eventually. And this is this also brings us back
again to the paradigms and the power of paradigms, because not only does this lie
outside of a deep time paradigm, you would never predict, you would never
expect and even after it's happened you would deny.
You'd say somebody's lunch! It doesn't it doesn't fit in there. Well
then that also leads us to understand why, I think was Dr. Anderson who was
telling us, that for years and years the the published reports was that
there was no radiocarbon in those bones. Well, when they went back and looked at
the raw data they said there was, because now they, well what happened?
They're adjusting them. Everything gets adjusted to a standard because they're like
well there can't be radiocarbon. So it's an anomaly.
It doesn't fit, and so forth, so it doesn't get reported. And so it's not out
of meanness, it's just that it doesn't. It's something weird. And so now
we go back and say well my goodness now there's or there's a radiocarbon in here
which shouldn't be there. Yes, right. Especially if you're talking about
you know 60, 70, 80 millions of years by that you know radiocarbon has
such a small half-life. It should be gone. But it isn't. And so now we have soft
dinosaur tissue, we have a radiocarbon in there which is saying that these may
not be as old as what we've been told. And so all of a sudden this is these are
one of those anomalies. This is the anomalies piling up. One after the other.
That began to shake a paradigm. Well yes. And I think that the important thing
here is to realize that it isn't that one believes based on the data, one
believes the paradigm first, and then begins to look at the data. But some
paradigms will be better fit by other data, just as history shows us that there
are some paradigms that really are fairly weak even though they may be
functional for a period of time. And I think that's a fair thing to say
about the Darwinian paradigm. It wasn't that it was all wrong and everything. I
don't think it is. I think that it's a less, it's not nearly as accurate a view
as the creation view. No. It leaves many things out, yet there's some smart people who
are very worth done wonderful work. I love reading
to be honest Donald Protheuaro. I love what he says. He hates creationists. I
love his books because I think he's a scientist that's really interested
in these things. Stephen J Gould. I can go down the list
of secular science. I like to read seeing through them, through how they
talk about the data, and knowing oh this could be looked at this way. You're just
spinning it this way. Now I don't.. spin is not the right word, interpreting it that way.
Sometimes more validly than others. No. It's just like somebody who studies heat
in air and and we study it and we realize because in our homes we find we
know that when air heats up it rises to the top. Well that's true.
It's not, you're not stupid. You see it, you can tell that. But if all of a sudden
you then say well then if we go to the top of the himalayas it's gonna be
really hot up there. When all of a sudden we find that that doesn't work. Well it's
an anomaly. And so we figure out okay why is that the case? If hot air rises? And
the same is true with ice. You know that as
water gets colder and colder it gets denser and denser. Well, if you
study it in a small section, that's really true and that's exactly what
happened. And water as it gets colder and colder it sinks to the bottom. But then
as it begins to solidify, it changes and it begins to float. Thankfully, otherwise
we'd have... life couldn't exist because ice would be on the on the bottom. But it's
what happens when when a paradigm all of a sudden begins to get data outside of
its range. It's not that there's something wrong with your study here.
It's not that you don't understand heat and cold temperatures and it's and how
it applies to the molecular activity of water, but you understood it within a
particular range. And now all of a sudden it begins to change. And now we
have this same situation, you know. It is and it but I think that the issue
here in terms of the empirical data of stuff and then historical science is an
important distinction. That's really what we try to do with these first sections.
Starting from Mount St. Helens and going all the way to soft tissue. That's really
our first part of the film if you will. Where you deal with the geology and you
deal with the catastrophe. And it's this idea that
geological sciences are historical sciences. So you can't go do any of these
experiments in exactly the same way. And the paradigm that's driving it is
reinterpreting all of this historical data. And so what we wanted, I
wanted to demonstrate, is that catastrophe and large flood events and
the text and the fossil record and all of the materials inside of, they all fit
in one. You can look at them together and realize well there's actually a lot
a concilience, if you will, a jumping together of things that make a lot of
sense with this biblical history. And furthermore it's a history that's now
being put against a history, the natural history. And it goes back to that
paradigm that this is not about philosophies, essentially. It's about
adopted history. And that's really what that first section is. I feel
like the soft-tissue basically is the nail in the coffin, in my opinion. That
we've established all these points and it's like okay let's just shut this lid
I don't think this is the best accurate view of history. Because time comes from
the rocks it doesn't come from anywhere else. It comes from the rocks based on
this earth. And we're not talking about the heavens right now. But you know on the
earth it's on the rocks